This is a solemn, important moment. It's not a joyous one. An evil man deserved to die. His elimination was necessary — not close to sufficient, but necessary — for achieving, over time, a semblance civilized stability in Iraq...

...This wasn't victory. It didn't end suffering. It was, in the heat of a war that has actually gotten more vicious and more uncertain since Saddam's capture three years ago, the carrying out of an essential but unpleasant duty. It marginally enhances Iraq's propects, and ours. But Saddam's death (as opposed to his deposing) has no impact whatsoever on the deep dysfunction and hatred that is rending what passes for Iraqi society...

...Saddam's death is a marker worth observing. It is not something to go up in a balloon over.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Lawyers for Saddam Hussein on Friday made a last-minute appeal to an American court to avert execution in Iraq, asking a judge to block his transfer from U.S. custody to the hands of Iraqi officials.

Hussein's lawyers filed documents Friday afternoon asking for an emergency restraining order aimed at stopping the U.S. government from relinquishing custody of the condemned former Iraqi leader to Iraqi officials, a spokeswoman for a federal court in Washington D.C. said.

The documents were being processed and were not immediately made public. The Justice Department had not yet responded to the request.

More:

The appeal is being heard by Clinton appointee Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Iraq was preparing for the rapid execution of former dictator Saddam Hussein, with the US-backed government eager to bring his chapter in the country’s bloody history to an end.Justice Minister Hashem al-Shibli said Saddam’s death sentence for crimes against humanity, upheld by an Iraqi appeal court on Tuesday, would be rubber stamped by the presidency and the prison service would hang him.

It’s time that Iraq rid themselves of Saddam. That said, Saddam’s execution won’t cure the violence inside Iraq. That won’t subside until Moqtada al-Sadr is marginalized or exterminated & until Iran’s influence is eliminated. Exterminating al-Sadr is definitely doable in the short term but eliminating Iran’s influence will be a much more difficult project.

One thing that might happen as part of Saddam’s execution is that it might tamp down the Sunni-initiated violence. That might happen independent of what al-Sadr’s militias do.

Tension was boiling up further south in the holy city of Najaf after an American soldier killed a senior ally of Sadr during a raid on his house. Sadr supporters and local police told AFP that US and Iraqi soldiers had stormed the family home of Sahib al-Ameri, the president of a pro-Sadr political foundation in the holy city of Najaf, and shot him dead.

Let’s hope that Sadr gets the message that American troops aren’t waiting on Maliki’s blessing with regards to Sadr. This is a clear message to Sadr that he isn’t immune to American attacks. He can’t depend on Maliki protecting him anymore.

I linked to this photo of lonely John Kerry spurned by the troops in Iraq last night via Power Line, but the photo is going viral and it's worth re-posting as a stand-alone.

Thank radio talk show host Scott Hennen for sharing the image. He tells Power Line he'll be talking more about the picture and the story behind it during his guest stint for Sean Hannity today and tomorrow. More background at Ben of Mesopotamia's blog:

On Saturday night, a colleague emailed me and told me to bring my camera, as Senator Kerry was scheduled to give a press conference here in the Palace. At 2100, he entered a conference room wearing his leather flight jacket. Unfortunately, there was no media there, except for the enlisted soldiers from AFTN (Armed Forces Television Network) who had to be there. His aide looked around, saw that this just wasn't happening, and quickly escorted Kerry out before I could take a picture.

Finally, the next morning, Senator Kerry ate chow at the Dining Facility. Normally when a Senator/Representative visits, he is joined by a contingent of soldiers/Marines/airmen from his home state. Despite the fact that the MP unit responsible for Green Zone security is an Army Reserve unit from Massachusetts, not a single soldier went to sit with him. (By contrast, Bill O'Reilly, host of that terrible shoutfest on Fox, had over 400 soldiers waiting in line to meet him on Saturday).

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

***update: Dec 27 756am Eastern Bush speaks...Ford "was a true gentleman who reflected the best in America's character...he commanded the respect and earned the good will of all who had the privilege of knowing him...for a nation that needed healing and an office that needed a calm and steady hand, Gerald Ford came along when we needed him most...we mourn the loss of such a leader...May God bless Gerald Ford."

Ford became America's 38th president and, most importantly, America's first never-elected president & the only person whose name never even appeared on a presidential ballot before taking the presidential oath. While his presidency was just two years and five months long, it was no mere historical blip. He was uniquely suited for the challenge he inherited & calming the nation after the implosion of a presidency, vice presidency and administration of criminals.

When Vice President Spiro Agnew was proven to be a crook and resigned, President Richard Nixon appointed Ford as veep. Nixon, already trapped in his Watergate web of lies and deceits, figured that the lightly regarded Ford would be insurance against his own impeachment. (It was neither Nixon's first nor worst miscalculation.)

Just eight months later, Nixon resigned, fleeing sure impeachment and conviction; and Ford became president. In his presidency, Ford traveled to China and to a U.S.-Soviet strategic arms summit in Vladivostok. South Vietnam collapsed on his watch. And, of course, he pardoned Nixon. But Ford may have met his greatest challenge and performed his greatest service to the nation on Aug. 9, 1974, the day he took the oath of office.

In his inaugural address in the East Room, President Ford famously told a shaken nation: "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works . . ." In his speech, he also spoke a line that I've always liked best & because, in its simplicity, it summed up all that was wrong with the Nixon White House and all that would be needed to make things right: "I believe that truth is the glue that holds government together . . ." It was true that day and it is every bit as true today. It is why we always will appreciate Jerry Ford.

A CNN commentator says President Ford will be buried at the Ford library and museum in Grand Rapids, Michigan after funeral/memorial services in California, D.C., and lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda.

Here's President Bush's statement.Paul Mirengoff: "My favorite Ford moment came in his 1975 state of the union address when he declared, "the state of the union is not good." Do you think we'll ever hear another president make a statement like that when his party has controlled the White House for an extended period?"

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

Gordon D. Johndroe, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said two Iranian diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. The two had papers showing that they were accredited to work in Iraq, and he said they were turned over to the Iraqi authorities and released. He confirmed that a group of other Iranians, including the military officials, remained in custody while an investigation continued, and he said, “We continue to work with the government of Iraq on the status of the detainees.”

Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democrat who is considering a run for the White House, argued in a column in an Iowa newspaper Sunday for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Sen. Dodd and Sen. Kerry met with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad on December 20. Earlier, Sen. Kerry met with U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq. In other words, these wimpy senators were talking about getting out of Iraq while the news was circulating that Iran was interfering in another nation’s affairs. The last I looked, that doesn’t fit the definition of a civil war. Instead, that’s an act of war. Syria is merely Iran’s puppet.

The bottom line is that Sens. Dodd and Kerry are telling Syria that they don’t need to stop letting terrorists into Iraq and that Iran can keep working to undercut the legitimately elected Iraqi government. In short, they’re pulling an April Glaspie.

In short, it’s time we told these dimwitted and wimpy Democrats to shut up until they pay attention to reality and pay attention to doing what’s best for U.S. national security.

Monday, December 25, 2006

A new virus is spreading throughout the US Senate and it appears that an increasing number of our lawmakers have been infected. The last notable germ to contaminate the Senate was this year’s Pro-Illegal-Alien bug that will continue to allow illegal immigrants to enter the US and destroy any continued hope for US sovereignty. However, this new highly-contagious and virulent disease may prove to be terminal—for both the United States of America and its people.

Some of the observable symptoms of this latest malady include:

* US Senators traveling to the Middle East, while rushing to formulate their own—individual—US foreign policies* US Senators demanding that President Bush meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad to “help” with Lebanon and Iraq—even though Assad has been part and parcel to terrorist activities in the region* US Senators demands that the Bush Administration open up “talks” with Iran regarding “assistance” in the ‘problems in the Middle East’—despite the fact that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been the largest supplier of terrorists in Iraq, has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and is a weapons’ supplier to both Palestinian Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon* Bent over US Senators looking under rocks, in order to find the elusive and mythical “appeasement Unicorn”—despite the fact that terrorists only respond positively to strength * Senators heard almost incoherently mumbling, while gnashing their teeth: “We have to give up. We have to surrender…

To date, some of the more vocal infected senators include Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CN), Ben Nelson (D-FL), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and—of course—John Kerry (D-MA). Joining the Democrats is Republican-in-name-only (AKA “RINO”) Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who plans a trip to Syria to meet with thug-in-charge Assad. Specter and the others have made the decision that they will now decide how to affect US policy, when dealing with terrorists and their leaders. In actually meeting with those leaders, the senators not only provide credibility to those “leaders” who are actually causing said terrorism but, place the US in a visible-to-the-world weakened state. This illness, initially dubbed the “Stupidity-that-flies-in-the-face-of-all-common-sense-and-reason”—or SCAR) virus—is also said to be spreading to other senators; those who want to be President of the United States but, “can’t get elected even in their widest dreams”. Thus far, the disease has only affected US senators. But, indications are that is may be spreading into the House of Representatives. Speaker-to-be Pelosi (D-CA) has indicated that she too thinks talking with terrorist nations Iran and Syria could be “helpful”.

Showing that the SCAR virus has moved into areas of the brain, the Middle Eastern-bound senators are making additional seemingly bizarre statements. John Kerry recently said: “I’m going to push them [the Syrians] on a number of different issues. I’m curious about what they might or might not be willing to do as we go forward here.” What “they might or might not be willing to do”, Senator? With its two recent assassinations of Lebanese leaders and Syria’s support of terrorist Hezbollah, I would have thought that question had already been answered—even for the dullest individuals amongst us. And how, pray tell, do you plan to “push them”? Are you going to threaten the use of your infamous spit-balls? Note: This individual could actually have become POTUS.

Joining Kerry on his “I’ll-fix-everything-in-the-Middle-East whirlwind tour” is Christopher Dodd. In Lebanon, the two met with Hezbollah ally and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. The two men then took time for a photo-op with leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of Lebanon’s Walid Jumblatt—who, until recently, was a Hezbollah supporter. No matter to the senators. Besides, Kerry has met with and supported enemies of the US in the past and has said: “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.” Hard as it may be to believe, this man actually is a US senator.

Commenting on the Iraq Study Group report (AKA “The Iraq Surrender Group Report”), Sen. Durbin said nonsensically: “I believe the clearest way to make this report a reality is to begin redeployment [translation: “cut and run”] of our troops out of Iraq in January 2007.” Senator Ben Nelson was, apparently, the first to contract the SCAR virus (ground zero) and the first to have a dialogue with Assad. However, the disease may not be as potent in Nelson, as he actually said: “I don’t trust him [Assad] at all.” Commenting on these peripatetic patriarchs, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow commented: “The point is that even lending a further specter of legitimacy to that government undermines the cause of democracy in the region.” Thankfully, at least Tony hasn’t as yet contracted the disease.

The problems inherent in these trips for conversations with our enemies, as well as attempts to bolster the senators’ self-importance, is that it places the USA in a perceived diluted position while assuming a bent and submissive posture. But, as has for too long been the case, “our” senators don’t seem to care. These are the ones you elected, folks. And, these are the ones who may just destroy us. Considering the results of the 2006 mid-term elections, perhaps the SCAR virus has already spread to the US’ general population. For the survival of the country, we can only hope and pray a cure is found. And, I would suggest, it had best be soon.

Sunday, December 24, 2006

The socialistic welfare state is extolled by liberal-socialistic-progressives as more Christian then Christianity, because the welfare state purports to help the needy. So did Hitler’s National Socialism.

Traditional Christmas spirit, depicted in Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, was the warmth of family gatherings, friendship, and loving kindness to everyone.

Today, however, many people insist that socialism IS Christianity. It’s certainly true that the early churches established by the Apostle Paul grew rapidly, because people found there the Christian love and fellowship, as well as support for the poor, sick, elderly, and disabled, that was available nowhere else.

The socialist political state, however, is expressly atheistic and materialistic. There can therefore be no identity between Christianity and socialism, simply on the superficial basis that they nominally espouse some of the same objectives.

The collectivized compulsion of the socialistic state is exemplified by bureaucratic rules mandating certain conduct, described in tens of millions of regulations.

The spirit of Christmas is written in every individual human heart. We must soften our hearts and listen to God’s commands. We must look inward and ask ourselves what is the right thing to do. Going to the Federal rule books is no substitute.

From the purely practical viewpoint, there is also the historical fact that, before the New Deal in this country, those sorts of social needs were better cared for by families, churches, emigrant societies, the mutual-support organizations found in every community, and local governments, without the vast social destruction of the welfare state. Before 1933 there was, for example, no society-wide illegitimacy or single-parent problem and no vast horde of people who, for three of four generations, never sought work, preferring to make living on welfare their life’s career.

Caring for the poor, elderly, sick, and disabled ought to be individual Christian responsibilities of families, churches, emigrant societies, and local governments (towns preferably, but no higher than the state level). Caring should flow from the desire of every individual to love God and therefore to reflect God’s love in dealings with everyone else.

Caring concern for others, a central aspect of our Judeo-Christian heritage, ought to be an every-day matter. It should be especially prominent in our minds at Christmas time.

In the past, such things were moral responsibilities. Today they are political issues, made so by the socialistic political state. It becomes too easy for people to shirk their moral responsibilities by objecting sourly that they’ve “already given at the office” via confiscatory taxes.

The socialistic welfare-state is no substitute for the spirit of Christmas.

—

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants, saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s. They accused the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of “racial profiling,” or selective enforcement against Hispanics, for arresting 1,300 workers on immigration violations in December 12 raids at meatpacking plants in six states.

These activist groups jumped the shark by equating enforcing existing laws with Hitler’s Germany. Do these activists realize that they’ve just marginalized themselves? Something that I’m wondering is whether this fits into the legislation that Pelosi and Conyers plan on introducing on CAIR’s behalf.

“We are demanding an end to these immigration raids, where they are targeting brown faces. That is major, major racial profiling, and that cannot be tolerated,” said Rosa Rosales, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, at a news conference. “This unfortunately reminds me of when Hitler began rounding up the Jews for no reason and locking them up,” Democratic Party activist Carla Vela said. “Now they’re coming for the Latinos, who will they come for next?”

Saying that ICE uses racial profiling in making the raids is stating the obvious. Should ICE profile white-skinned Europeans in looking for illegal aliens? Or should they target African-Americans? Or should they just use random searches like they use in airports so that Hispanics aren’t targeted? What tools should ICE use in going after illegal aliens? Or are these groups asking that the borders not be enforced at all?

I’ll be interested in seeing how the 110th Congress will handle this issue. It’ll tell us alot about how serious they are on law enforcement and national security issues. If the Democrats in Congress include Hispanics in their legislation against profiling of all sorts. If they are, then it’s important that Republicans step forward to say that that isn’t acceptable. It’s important that Republicans filibuster such legislation.

Friday, December 22, 2006

That’s essentially what Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is doing in this Boston Globe op-ed about Jimmy Carter’s unwillingness to debate Dershowitz about Carter’s most recent book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” Here’s the opening paragraph of Professor Dershowitz’s op-ed:

YOU CAN ALWAYS tell when a public figure has written an indefensible book: when he refuses to debate it in the court of public opinion. And you can always tell when he’s a hypocrite to boot: when he says he wrote a book in order to stimulate a debate, and then he refuses to participate in any such debate. I’m talking about former president Jimmy Carter and his new book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”

Carter has been exposed repeatedly by both liberal Jews and by conservative Christians but few have flayed him as thoroughly as has Professor Dershowitz. Carter’s fear of debating Dershowitz is understandable considering the indefensible statements that he made in his book, not to mention having to defend those statements against a debater of Professor Dershowitz’s caliber.

Dershowitz continues, saying:

The next week Carter wrote a series of op-eds bemoaning the reception his book had received.

He wrote that his “most troubling experience” had been “the rejection of [his] offers to speak” at “university campuses with high Jewish enrollment.” The fact is that Brandeis President Jehuda Reinharz had invited Carter to come to Brandeis to debate me, and Carter refused. The reason Carter gave was this: “There is no need to for me to debate somebody who, in my opinion, knows nothing about the situation in Palestine.”

As Carter knows, I’ve been to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, many times, certainly more times than Carter has been there, and I’ve written three books dealing with the subject of Middle Eastern history, politics, and the peace process. The real reason Carter won’t debate me is that I would correct his factual errors. It’s not that I know too little; it’s that I know too much.

While it’s true that Carter wants nothing to do with debating anyone about this book, the bigger truth is that he doesn’t want his lies to be exposed to the public because it will be a public humiliation that will forever sink what little is left of his presidential legacy. Carter tried making provocative statements with hopes of them just being accepted as fact. When that didn’t happen, he started backpedaling and obfuscating about what he wanted the book to be.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

I just read the scariest headline I never wanted to read. Here’s that headline:

If that isn’t enough to get your undivided attention, then nothing will get your undivided attention. Here’s the gist of the article:

During a speech delivered in the Western Iranian province of Javanroud, Ahmadinejad said: ” The Islamic Republic of Iran is now a nuclear power, thanks to the hard work of the Iranian people and authorities.” The announcement of Iran as a “nuclear power” is bound to significantly escalate tensions between the West and Iran, and marks a dramatic stage in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear campaign.In recent days, the US military has begun to build up forces around the Gulf, in what is being seen as as a warning to Iran. Ahmadinejad was also reported to have announced that “Iranian young scientists reached the zenith of science and technology and gained access to the nuclear fuel cycle without the help of big powers.” The Iranian president began the speech by saying that “the powerful Iranian nation resists bullying powers and will defend its rights, including the right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology,” the IRNA said.

Here’s a newsflash for Sen. Kerry, Justice O’Connor, Rep. Hamilton, SecState James Baker, etc: You can’t negotiate with a nut like that. If ever there was proof of these people’s lack of wisdom, this should suffice. This group didn’t learn Reagan’s lesson of negotiating from a position of strength. They’re just a bunch of ’surrendering realists’ who think that talking endlessly is a solution to every situation. Shame on them for thinking that.

It’s worth reviewing Reagan’s principle on negotiation. The Reagan principle teaches that you don’t negotiate until you scare the daylights out of the people you’re negotiating with. It’s only at that time that they’re willing to make significant, long-lasting concessions. Furthermore, the Reagan Principle teaches us that there shouldn’t be a time when the United States can’t get to the position of superiority to negotiate from.

Gorbachev didn’t make the concessions that he did because of his benevolence. He made them because he knew that Reagan wasn’t someone to be messed with and because Reagan’s policies and actions scared him into making concessions.

Right now, we don’t scare Ahmadinejad. That must stop. IMMEDIATELY. We need to put the fear of God into him. We need to help him feel like Qaddafi felt after Reagan bombed Qaddafi’s home.

In a clear rejection of all diplomatic attempts to prevent Iran from going nuclear, Ahmadinejad added in his speech that “the Iranian nation will continue in its nuclear path powerfully and will celebrate a nuclear victory soon.”

It’s time that we put some serious pressure on Iran with a multi-front, multi-faceted policy that makes them wish they’d never started this escalation.

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Al-Qaeda's #2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri has made a new tape and is weighing in on possible elections in the Palestinian territories. He says elections would only lead to defeat and that the only way to really win was armed struggle. Now you know what goes on inside the mind of an Islamic terrorist. And Democrats think we should negotiate with these people. Can't we all just get along?

This is the problem with sitting down and talking with people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Al-Assad. To them, the enemy is not the United States...or even democracy. The enemy is the non-believers...anyone who is not a Muslim. To the Islamic extremist, anyone who does not worship Allah must be either converted, subjugated or exterminated. Zawahiri's tape also exposes another lie: that the "Palestinians" actually want peace.

They don't now and never have. Even if Israel was driven into the sea, they would find something else to fight over. All you need for evidence of this is the Camp David summit in 2000...where Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat everything he wanted, and Arafat still turned him down. Peace in the Middle East has nothing to do with resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, despite what Jimmy Carter says.

Don't you think it's rather interesting that NOBODY in the middle east particularly wants to have anything to do with the Palestinians ...except to use them as cannon fodder in their war against the West?

So there you have it....Al-Qaeda's Christmas message. He sounds upset...maybe we need to send the Iraq Study Group to talk to him.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Are you tired of your secular, leftist friends claiming a monopoly on compassion? Ready to see if irreligious Democrats who mocks the “religious right” put their money where their mouths are?

It wasn’t too long ago that Al Gore called supporters of Oliver North, a largely Christian group, “the extreme rightwing, the extra-chromosome right wing”. Howard Dean, the Democratic Committee Chairman, said, “You know, the Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They’re a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. … It’s pretty much a white Christian party.'’

Of the 25 states that had the highest number of houses of worship per capita, 19 had levels of households’ charitable donations that were above the national average. Conversely, 19 of the 25 states with the lowest number of houses of worship per capita had household levels of charitable giving that were below the national average.

The average donation given to non-religious charities by weekly churchgoers is 14% higher than donations given to non-religious charities by…ahem… non-religious people.

People who say religious beliefs are important were 19% more likely to volunteer (51% vs. 32%) than those who say religious beliefs don’t matter as long as one is a good person.

Regular churchgoers are 11% more likely to donate to causes related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks than their secular counterparts.

It’s also worth pointing out that in 2005, the Catalogue for Philanthropy, the National Generosity Index for 2005 reported the most generous states for charitable giving in the US were “Red States” (Republican states that voted for Bush) and Bible Belt states. The most miserly states were “Blues States” (Democratic states which voted for Kerry). Mississippi, which is also one of the lowest income states, tops the list as the #1 most generous whereas New Hampshire comes in dead last at #50. Massachusetts comes in at #49, New Jersey at #48, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Connecticut rounding out the bottom 5.

I’m a committed Christian. And the fact of whether I go to church or not, people can say whether I should or shouldn’t, I worship in my own way. It came out in the campaign that I pray every night. That’s my business. That’s not the business of the Pharisees who are going to preach to me about what I do and then do something else.

You know, I care about values a lot. And one of the reasons that I care a lot is because of my upbringing. And it was a–I grew up in a Christian household. Now, because I grew up–I’m a congregationalist. People say, “Well, those are liberals.” Well, since when do Christians get tagged liberal or conservative? You either believe in the teachings of Jesus or you don’t. I do.

Actually, it;s not just about believing, it’s about believing and doing. While liberals love hoarding the compassion of Christ without stepping foot into a Church, or occasionally visiting a liberal Church that flies in the face of basic Christian teaching of morality while maintaining a platform hostile to religion, the truth is a Christian must both believe and do the teachings of Christ. St. James called it “faith and works”, the evidence of faith.

The proof is in the giving. The litmus test of compassion is giving to others who cannot repay. Apparently religious faithful are rising to the task; are secularists? Apparently not.

Monday, December 18, 2006

We can all dream a little…

Every once in a while (and don’t tell me you haven’t done this yourself) I allow my mind to drift off into fantasy-land for a brief period of time, where I begin to envision what this great nation of ours would be like if the most qualified and intelligent people around actually held positions of authority in our government. Earlier today I lapsed into that exact mental state, so I decided to take a few notes while I was there, and I came up with the following list of folks who, in my humble opinion, would best be suited to run the Executive branch in 2008.

Keep in mind, however, that some of the individuals mentioned in this article were added to it several hours after my daydreaming session had ended, because, at the time I couldn’t remember the titles of some of our nation’s less well-known Cabinet posts. I trust you’ll forgive me if a few of my choices are somewhat less impressive than the rest. After all, who would YOU pick to be the Secretary of Agriculture?

By any means, I now present to you my personal fantasy picks for President, Vice President, and the various Cabinet Secretaries of the United States. After each person listed below I’ve included a simple paragraph outlining their respective qualifications… except for the bottom five individuals, whom I’d never heard of before today, but who appear to be pretty decent public servants nonetheless. Of course, you don’t have to take my word for that. You can always click on the links I’ve placed below each of their names, which should provide you with all the pertinent biographical information you may require.

Of all the leading conservative politicians in America, I can think of no one who is more intelligent, articulate, knowledgeable, or serious-minded than former House Speaker Gingrich. Since leaving office in 1999, Mr. Gingrich has written many articles, policy papers, and books on a wide variety of subjects, and few politicians can match this former history professor’s speech-making abilities. If there is any Republican in America who is more hated by leftists than George W. Bush, it’s Newt… and for good reason; when compared to him, every liberal in Washington D.C. sounds like a babbling nitwit.

Simply put, this popular, two-term, Colorado Governor, former state House member, former state Senator, and former state Treasurer is one of the most effective elected officials in the nation today. He holds a Masters degree in public administration from the University of Texas, and is considered an expert on Russian affairs. Known for his fiscal responsibility, predilection for lowering taxes, and an unwavering determination to improve the public school system, Mr. Owens is widely regarded as one of the rising stars of the Republican party.

What can I say about this man that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and practically every well-informed conservative in America hasn’t already said? This accomplished author, Constitutional Law expert, and talk radio host isn’t called “The Great One” for nothing. Known for his brilliant legal mind, as well as an acerbic wit and abhorrence for judicial activism, Mark Levin, who currently heads the Landmark Legal Foundation, is uniquely qualified to head the U.S. Department of Justice… and if you don’t believe me, just ask him!

If hands-on leadership and over three decades of experience fighting for our country are what you’re looking for in a Defense Department head, you need look no further than the current U.S. CentCom Commander. As a West Point graduate and four-star Army General, whose service decorations include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit (with 5 Oak Leaf Clusters), the Bronze Star Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters), John Abizaid stands out as one of the finest military leaders of our time.

Any American who has ever heard this man deliver a speech on the virtues of this, his adoptive country, would be hard pressed to walk away from the event feeling anything but pride. A native of Mumbai, India, Dinesh moved to the U. S. as a youth, and is now a naturalized American citizen. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Dartmouth College, a former Senior Policy Analyst for the Reagan White House, a former Editor of various political affairs magazines, a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a former Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a best-selling author of - among other books - ‘What’s So Great about America’ and ‘The End of Racism ‘.

Dr. McIntyre is a retired Army Colonel who holds a BS in Engineering from West Point, and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Maryland. He is the former Deputy Director of the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security, and currently heads the Integrative Center for Homeland Security at Texas A&M University. He has taught national security/homeland security strategy at senior levels of government for nearly two decades, has worked in the office of the Army Chief of Staff in Washington, DC, and lectured at the Maxwell School of National Security Studies, the National War College, the Naval War College, and George Washington University.

Aside from Alan Greenspan and the recently deceased Milton Friedman, no American economist is better known or more well-respected than Thomas Sowell, whose syndicated columns are published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes Magazine, and Capitalism Magazine. He holds an A.B. in Economics from Harvard College, an A.M. in Economics from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago, were he studied under Nobel Prize-winning economist George Stigler. He has written 5 books on economics, as well as two dozen more on various other topics, and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Dr. Bennett is a former Reagan Administration Secretary of Education, as well as former Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H. W. Bush. He holds a Law degree from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. in Political Philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a best-selling book author and highly valued speaker on the topics of American culture and morality, among others. He believes in competency tests for educators, performance-based pay, ending tenure, allowing knowledgeable professionals with no formal education training to teach, and providing parents with greater school choices.

With 33 years of continuous Senatorial service under his belt, Pete Domenici holds the record for the longest tenure of any New Mexican elected to the upper house of the U.S. Congress, wherein he recently cast his 13,000th vote. He is a former junior high school mathematics teacher, lawyer, and author of two books on the subject of nuclear power. He currently serves as the Chairman of both the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development, and is co-sponsor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Radical feminists HATE Phyllis, who headed a successful grassroots campaign to prevent passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. She believed that such an amendment would lead to negative cultural shifts which would inevitably result in things like homosexual marriage and government-funded abortions. Mrs. Schlafly is a lawyer who has authored 21 books on subjects ranging from child abuse to judicial tyranny, and has testified before 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on Constitutional, family, and national defense issues. At 81 years of age, she is as spry as most 20-year-olds, giving daily radio commentaries, writing a widely published syndicated column, running a national volunteer organization known as the Eagle Forum, publishing a monthly newsletter, and debating cultural issues on college campuses across the country.

While he may be best known as the younger brother of the President, Jeb is no Billy Carter. In 1973 he graduated Phi Beta Kappa with a Bachelor’s degree in Latin American studies from the University of Texas at Austin, later taking a job with the Texas Commerce Bank. Several years later he moved to Florida, where he worked as a real estate developer and consultant, and eventually a political lobbyist. Today he is the Governor of Florida, with a long and distinguished record of accomplishments which include maintaining a 3.0 unemployment rate in his state, and cutting taxes every year since 1998. Often characterized as brilliant, he is also a man of high principles, and his hard work and determination have transformed Florida into one of the most successful states in the union.

Senator Dole is the wife of former Senator and former Republican Presidential nominee Bob Dole, and she currently Chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee. She was Deputy Assistant to President Nixon for Consumer Affairs, later being appointed to the Federal Trade Commission. Afterward, she became the nation’s first female Secretary of Transportation under the Reagan Administration, and then Secretary of Labor under the first Bush Administration. Prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate, she headed the American Red Cross, and holds a Masters degree in Education and Government, as well as a Law degree from Harvard University.

A Few Parting ThoughtsAfter having proofread everything I’ve written above, it strikes me that there are only two female members of my White House “dream team”, and most of the male members are white. I suppose it’s possible that if race or sex had been on my mind at the time I was formulating my list, I might have been tempted to drop a couple of those caucasian fellows and replace them with men or women of some other race… but I doubt it. Call me unconventional, but physical characteristics usually don’t enter into my thought processes when I’m considering a person’s qualifications for an administrative job, and once I’ve made a decision on such an issue, I require a better reason for changing my mind than simply satisfying the whims of the pc-police.

Since race-baiters and left-wing ideologues do not intimidate me, anyone who feels the need to call me a racist, sexist, or some other ‘ist’ just because this article doesn’t pass their personal diversity test, is hereby encouraged to email me at his or her earliest convenience. However, be forewarned that my response to you may not be exactly pleasant. You see, it’s precisely because I’m not a bigot that I’ve selected the people I have to run my imaginary government, despite the fact that every ACLU fan out there will probably consider me to be more hateful than Hitler for not creating a mock Cabinet that “looks like America.” If you ask me, choosing political leaders who “stand for America” is far more important than keeping up appearances, and anyone who can’t appreciate that is truly prejudiced.

—

Edward L. Daley is the owner of the Daley Times-Post - http://www.times-post.com

Sunday, December 17, 2006

German political philosopher Karl Marx (along with Friedrich Engels) compiled the Communist Manifesto in 1848, declaring there is no God and no divine right to freedom and individual pursuits. In other words, Marxism means never having to say “Merry Christmas.”

Today, Marx would likely have had full tenure among like-minded colleagues at a top American university, earning a capitalistic six-figure salary in addition to housing and cost-of-living allowances. As is the case with many a current professor, Marx was not much of an original thinker (though his supporters would have you believe otherwise).

Marx based many writings on those of early 19th century German philosophers, including George Wilhelm Hegel, who rejected the concept of moral absolutes, and Ludwig Feuerbach, who stated that if there are no absolutes, then there is no God.[1] Accordingly, those who held such beliefs fervently embraced and promoted Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species in 1859 and his Descent of Man in 1871 precisely because Darwin offered a much-needed godless alternate to the Bible’s divine creation.

The decades-long attempt to reduce Christmas to a secular winter holiday is as much a part of a larger plot as The Battle of the Bulge was a part of World War II. What Marxists could not overthrow and rule then with tanks and the military, they are conquering now with textbooks and the media. Political atheism drives the secular attacks on Christmas, creationism, the chant of “God is Dead,” the ban on school prayer and attempts to delete deity from our pledge of allegiance and motto, “In God We Trust.” A godless global force views Christmas as just another way to assault modern liberties and rights, of which freedom of religion is one. Left unchallenged, past secular movements have sent tens of millions to work camps, to gulags and to their deaths simply for refusing to conform.

Whether you call them socialists or Communists, both political factions are Marxists-in-training. The magazine, International Socialist Review, for example, bills itself as providing “in-depth Marxist analysis, history and coverage of discussion and debates on the left …” Marxism claims to provide the masses with an equal share of necessities, but instead creates a throwback to a feudal system in which lords and magistrates rule from on high, providing only what is deemed necessary to their serfdom.

Today’s socialist elite, many of whom are Democrats in this country, often place themselves above the common people and even common decency. The party’s hand-picked media elite live in opulent Manhattan towers that loom above the city’s masses while the party’s Hollywood elite live in luxury on hillsides far removed from the teeming confines of Los Angeles.

In addition, George Soros is one the Democrats’ largest financial supporters. Soros’ passion for atheism has been described as having missionary zeal. Soros holds true to Marx’s notion of no fixed standard of right or wrong. A ruthless financier, Soros has made a sport of bankrupting emerging nations by betting against and undermining their currencies. Soros created the currency crisis in Southeast Asia almost single handedly in late 1997. Afterward, Malaysia banned him from their markets for life, and his reprehensible greed deprived countries in Indonesia of much needed foreign investment capital for years later.

With a characteristic lack of logic and honesty, today’s elite class will compare President George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler. This bit of propaganda is as effective as it is deceptive, especially when spread among the less informed of the American public. Hitler’s party was that of the National Socialists and groups such as the ACLU and Democrats are most often associated with socialist ideology. Further, the American Heritage Dictionary, circa 1970, defines Mein Kampf as “a book (1924-26) by Adolph Hitler, setting forth the doctrines and programs of National Socialism.” (Also, another godless and murderous dictator, Joseph Stalin, formed the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics.)

Democrat Ramsey Clark, U.S. Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, was in Iraq as a member of Saddam Hussein’s defense team. Clark also attended a conference in 1980, “The Crimes of America,” in Tehran while 52 Americans were being held hostage there by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomneini. Clark has also traveled to such Communist ports-of-call as Vietnam and North Korea and in support of Marxist regimes in Panama and Libya where he would pronounce the U.S. guilty of war crimes.

Ronald Reagan presented the debate in a manner devoid of political context when on Oct. 27, 1964, he said, “You and I are told we must choose between a Left or Right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a Left or Right. There is only an up or down: up to man’s age-old dream, the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”

The battle over Christmas is neither an isolated skirmish nor a figment of the Christian imagination. The ability to say “Merry Christmas” has a much deeper meaning than we realize.

[1] Also prior to Marx, Danish writer Sren Kierkegaard borrowed from Hegel and Feuerbach to develop the idea of existentialism, stating that without God and absolutes, right and wrong cannot exist and, therefore, everything is permissible. And Kierkegaard’s work found a patron in Sigmund Freud, whose human sexuality theory allowed Leftist society to dismiss consistent morality and to open the floodgates of permissiveness, if not perversion.

—

Mike Spaniola writes political commentary that counters the oxymoron known as mainstream media. He lives high atop the Rocky Mountains in central Colorado.

Every December for the past 15 years, Morrill Worcester, owner of one of the world's largest holiday wreath companies, has taken time in the midst of his busiest season to haul a truckload of wreaths to Arlington from his small Downeast Maine town of Harrington.

For years, he and a small band of volunteers laid the wreaths in virtual obscurity. But in the last 12 months that has changed, thanks to a dusting of snow last year at the cemetery, an evocative photograph, a sentimental poem and a chain e-mail. And this year, Worcester went national. A new program, "Wreaths Across America," shipped a total of about 1,300 wreaths to more than 200 national cemeteries and vets' memorials in all 50 states.

Worcester, 56, says he wants to help Americans remember and honor deceased military veterans, particularly at Christmas, when they're missed most. On the Wreaths Across America website, he makes this comment: "When people hear about what we're doing, they want to know if I'm a veteran. I'm not. But I make it my business never to forget."

On Thursday he looked at the crowd of volunteers — five times as many as last year's — and said, "I didn't realize there were this many people that felt like I do."

The Internet played a key role in spreading the word and the movement:

The tradition grew slowly. Every year there were a few more volunteers in Harrington to load the truck and a few more in Arlington to lay the wreaths. Every January there'd be a few more calls, e-mails or letters. Worcester says that apart from a newspaper story here and a broadcast report there, "it was almost a private thing."

Until December 2005.

When the day was almost over and all the wreaths had been laid, it started to snow. Around the same time, an Air Force news photographer covering the event went back for a final picture before heading back to the Pentagon.

Master Sgt. James Varhegyi had shot hundred of images that morning. In accordance with photojournalistic convention, almost all had people in them.

When the Worcesters returned to Harrington, things quieted down as usual after Christmas. Except that instead of declining in January, the appreciative calls and e-mails began to increase.

Varhegyi's photo had been posted on an Air Force website, from which someone — the Worcesters don't know who — had lifted it, put it in an e-mail, and added a poem:

Rest easy, sleep well my brothers.Know the line has held, your job is done.Rest easy, sleep well.Others have taken up where you fell, the line has held.Peace, peace, and farewell …

"Please share this with everyone on your address list," the e-mail read. "You hear too much about the bad things people do. Everyone should hear about this."

The e-mail became an Internet sensation. It spread like a virus, so far and so fast that Snopes.com, a website devoted to exploring myths and rumors, investigated and confirmed its existence.

More and more people contacted Worcester Wreath Co. with questions, thanks and requests. By February, the company was getting 30 to 40 e-mails a day. People sent checks, which were returned. Company staffers found themselves devoting more and more time to phone calls about the Arlington effort.

One night, Sherry Scott, the office manager, was working late, trying to get caught up, when the phone rang:

"It was an elderly woman from Texas. She says, 'Tell me you're the company that lays the wreaths at Arlington.' When I said we were, there was silence. Then she started crying. She says, 'My Dad's buried at Arlington.' Then I started crying."

Friday, December 15, 2006

When you find a headline like that, you just gotta share it.

“Even as Islamic Hitlerites gather in Iran to deny the first Holocaust of the Jews* and to plot the second, former president Jimmy Carter tours America with a new book that describes Jews as racists and oppressors, and suggests they are also a conspiratorial mafia that intimidates “critics,” controls America’s media and war policy, and are therefore also the source of Islamic terrorism and the Arabs’ genocidal campaign to eliminate them from the map of the Middle East.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota has undergone brain surgery early this morning and already the media buzzards are circling. The reason? The Democrats have a 1-vote majority in the Senate...and if something happens to Johnson, the Republican governor of South Dakota would appoint a successor, handing control of the Senate back to the GOP. Now keep in mind, Johnson is still very much alive. Truly tasteless.

Even though nobody on the Republican side is talking about it, get ready for Democrats and the media to step up the accusation that they're thinking about it. And if Johnson should have to resign....the Democrats aren't going to go quietly. They're going to trot out the accusation that the GOP stole another election. Never underestimate the ability of the mainstream media and the Left to have absolutely no class at all.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The United States has been telling the world for what...oh about 10 years that Iran was a threat to the world because of its nuclear ambitions? And we have been ignored....and admonished...and told that we should sit down and talk to Mahmoud Whatshisface. Thanks to global Islamic appeasement, we've been made to look like the bad guy.

But now, since Iran is hosting this Holocaust forum in which they are denying the Holocaust ever took place, suddenly Iran is evil just for that reason. Germany's leader says Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says theHolocaust is a myth. Tony Blair says he is outraged beyond belief. Excuse me, but shouldn't we be worrying just a bit less about some Holocaust forum full of nutcases and more about Iran's financing and training of terrorists? How about their nuclear ambitions?

It would seem people are more worried about what Iran thinks of something that happened 60 years ago than what is going on now...which is their relentless quest for a nuclear weapon and their support for Al-Qaeda. Perhaps the world will wake up to what we've been saying for a long time now.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Sean Hannity recently visited Mosul, Iraq and had some candid conversations with the troops stationed there. The video was aired last night on Hannity & Colmes. Anyone interested in seeing just how wrong leftist politicians and media types are about soldiers, the war and all things patriotic needs to watch this video. If nothing else, this short video clip will give an insight into the motivations, feelings and opinions of most of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. WATCH HERE (or click the image below)

Some of the issues the soldiers talked about include victory in Iraq, why soldiers enlist during wartime, the naivete of the press and politicians who want overnight success, how they feel about John Kerry’s insulting comments about their educational and vocational status and the dichotomy between saying “We support the troops” and actually supporting the troops. GREAT STUFF. I’ve been saying this all along for three years. This is certainly my experience as an Army wife.

Do you remember the six flying Imams at the Minneapolis Airport a few weeks ago? These clowns made a big deal of praying at the gate before boarding. They were heard making anti-American comments by Arabic speaking passengers. They adopted the same seating pattern on the airliner that the 9/11 hijackers used. They asked for seat belt extensions they neither needed nor used. These Muslim Imams did everything they could, including shouting "Allah Akbar," to draw attention to themselves and to make the passengers on that flight uneasy. Finally the Captain of the flight did exactly what he should have done. He had them removed.

I am of the firm belief that this is exactly what the Flying Imams wanted to happen. I believe that after their meeting in the Minneapolis area they went to the airport with the intention of creating a stir and with the intention of being taken off that flight before it departed. Everything played out exactly the way they wanted it to play out.

And now its time for the pay out.

We learn now that the Flying Imams want an out-of-court settlement from US Airways for their "ordeal." In other words, they want money. They have gone to the dangerous Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Washington for help in their blackmail attempt. Remember, my friends, CAIR is not some benign, harmless Islamic organization. CAIR spokesmuslim Ibriham Hooper has spoken of his desire to see America under Islamic Law, as have other leaders in the CAIR organization. CAIR is more of an apologist for Islamic jihadists than it is an organization dedicated to improving our relationship with Muslims in America.

Now CAIR wants to participate with the Flying Imams in their attempt to extort money out of US Airways. Will US Airways cave and pay the Flying Imams a few million in hush money?

What we may see here is the beginning of a giant Muslim scam, a scam to be repeated over and over and over across this country. A way to use both our concerns over security and our idiotic penchant for political correctness to harass various American institutions while collecting no small amount of cash on the side.

It's very easy, really. Just go into some public place like an airport, restaurant or shopping mall, and then start to draw attention to yourself. Throw down a prayer rug and start banging your forehead off the floor. Speak loudly in Arabic in a hostile tone. Shout "Allah Akbar" a few times. Look threatening. Just ham it up, play on the legitimate fears of the American people, fears that someday soon some Muslim lunatic is going to walk into a restaurant or a shopping mall with a bomb. Sooner or later someone is going to call the cops, and sooner or later you're going to get kicked out of the restaurant, shopping mall, car dealership ... whatever. Then, as soon as that happens you go running to CAIR screaming something about "Islamophobia!"

Then, of course, will come the request for a meeting with the business that threw you out, and the demand for money.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Kofi Annan plans to give the United States the finger in his farewell address. USA Today reports:

In a farewell speech on U.S. soil today, retiring United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan plans to deliver a tough critique of President Bush's policies. He will accuse the administration of trying to secure the United States from terrorism in part by dominating other nations through force, committing what he termed human rights abuses and taking military action without broad international support.

Though Annan has long been a critic of the war in Iraq and other Bush foreign policies, the planned speech is among his toughest and is unusual for a U.N. secretary-general concluding his tenure.

Annan's remarks, provided to USA TODAY by his office, list principles for international relations, among them "respect for human rights and the rule of law."

These ideas can be advanced only "if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism," the speech says. "When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."

Like Kofi Annan knows anything about remaining true to principles? He leaves behind a feckless, corrupted, global bureaucracy incapable of policing the predators in its ranks, unwilling to stand up to evil, and useless in the struggle against terrorism--or any other global threat.

And it's all President Bush's and America's fault.

Good riddance to you and your wagging finger, Kofi Annan. You will not be missed.

***Betsy Newmark: "I wonder if he'll mention the whole oil for food scandal that occurred under his leadership in which UN officials were raking in kickbacks from Saddam Hussein. Or will he talk about abuses of human rights in Rwanda and Darfur? Or mention the terrorists who kill civilians or hide behind civilians every single day?"Ed Morrissey dissects Annan's Washington Post op-ed:

Come on, WaPo -- level with us. Claudia Rosett wrote this as a spoof, right?

There's plenty more laughs in Annan's goodbye screed. He tries to use Hillary Clinton's outline for It Takes A Village by telling readers that we are all responsible for each other's security, and that we are all responsible for each other's welfare. I'm sure that the people dying in Darfur will take great comfort in those words, in which the outgoing UN chief invokes them alongside the word "genocide" but manages to avoid applying it directly to them. Rwanda's victims also would second Annan's words, if any of them remained alive.

He then goes on to mention the rule of law and the need for states to play by the rules. However, in his quest for accountability, he fails to mention what consequences should come from failures to do so. We wanted to hold Saddam accountable for twelve years of intransigence in relation to 16 UN Security Council resolutions -- and Annan opposed the effort. We want to hold Iran accountable for its defiance of the non-proliferation treaty -- and Annan has little to say about that as well.

Accountability. Annan. Not exactly two terms one would tie together in UN history. This laughable attempt by Annan to do so will not succeed in anything except providing a much-needed laugh to Post readers.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

That’s what the LA Times titled Jimmy Carter’s op-ed. Unfortunately, that isn’t what President Carter did in this op-ed.

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations, but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

If we based our opinions on just what’s said in this paragraph, we’d believe that Jimmy Carter is the lone man willing to stand up to AIPAC. We’d believe that he’s the only man willing to ’speak truth to power’. I’d use many adjectives to describe Jimmy Carter but courageous isn’t one of those adjectives. I can’t even tell you that I think he’s got a grip on reality. What I can tell you is that AIPAC is powerful inside Washington. Then again, the pro-Arab lobby is powerful, too. That’s what makes this next quote so extraordinary:

It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.

While it’s true that speaking out against Israel would be politically suicidal, it’s equally true that speaking out against certain Arab groups is politically suicidal in districts like the ones represented by John Conyers and John Dingell. In fact, the truth is that it’s almost fashionable to speak out against Israel in the more liberal Jewish communities. That’s due to the fact that many liberal Jews think that Israel is to blame for the Middle East’s problems. That’s certainly the perspective of Tikkun Magazine’s editorial staff.

These options are consistent with key U.N. resolutions supported by the U.S. and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League’s offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet’s “Roadmap for Peace,” which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.

This is simply delusional thinking on Carter’s behalf. Nobody in their right mind thinks that the PLO has accepted the Roadmap. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Israel has rejected the Roadmap except when Hamas terrorists threaten Israel’s right to exist. Even a pacifist like President Carter knows that the UN Charter provides for the right of a country to defend itself.

Fred Barnes brought up something tonight on the Beltway Boys that I’d never heard before. He said an Israeli official once told him that they considered Carter to be an anti-Semite. Barnes said that he never believed that but this book is making him rethink that. That’s quite the stunning statement.

Former President Jimmy Carter faced new criticism Friday over his controversial book on Palestinian lands when a former Middle East diplomat accused him of improperly publishing maps that did not belong to him. The new charge came as Carter attempted to counter charges from a former top aide that the book manipulates facts to distort history. Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter’s book. “I think there should be a correction and an attribution,” Ross said. “These were maps that never existed, I created them.” After Ross saw the maps in Carter’s book, he told his publisher he wanted a correction. When asked if the former president ripped him off, Ross replied: “it sure looks that way.”

I’d think that this book represents a new low for Jimmy Carter. Not only does he paint an inaccurate picture of what’s happening in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel but he’s also ‘appropriated’ maps created by longtime Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. That type of appropriation is often called plaziarism or theft.

This begs another question: How much further can Jimmy Carter sink in terms of integrity and honesty?

Saturday, December 09, 2006

All are not praising the Iraq Study Group's report. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee for 2008, called the plan a recipe for defeat. Rudy Giuliani, the other presumptive Republican nominee for 2008, says leaving Iraq would be a terrible mistake. So what's the problem with the report?

McCain drew a direct parallel with Vietnam, saying "There's only one thing worse than an overstressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps. We saw that in 1973. And I believe that this is a recipe that will lead to, sooner or later, our defeat in Iraq." He's probably right. But after 4 years of fighting, the American people don't care anymore. They've given up. They no longer see the point in winning, which would explain the Democratic victories last month.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is also running for president, is saying pretty much the same thing. Giuliani actually was part of the Iraq Study Group, but resigned. He specifically took issue with the claim that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to blame for the situation in Iraq: "Israel and Palestine is an important issue. Sometimes it's used as an excuse to deal with underlying issues. But the reality here is that the Islamo-fundamentalist terrorists are at war with our way of life, with our modern world, with rights for women, religious freedom, societies that have religious freedom. And all of that would still exist, no matter what happens in Israel and Palestine." Exactly.

At least a few politicians see the light, for now anyway.

We need leadership now more than ever before. The American people don't really see any further threat from the Islamic fascists! Right now in who knows how many locales in the Middle east we have Islamic radicals working on plans to use horrible weapons to kill thousands of Americans on our own soil. The danger is there, but the American public is now blind to it.

Friday, December 08, 2006

Al Gore says the war in Iraq is the biggest mistake in the history of the United States. As usual, Al Gore is wrong. Aside from the Clinton/Gore Administration, there have been many, many much worse mistakes in the history of this country. Let's take a look at a few, shall we?

But first, here is what Gore said: the war in Iraq is "the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States." The entire history? Entire? I thought man's creation of global warming was a huge mistake? What about that, Al? At any rate..here's a few mistakes that rate just a bit higher than the war in Iraq:

The Vietnam War. Spanning decades and several administrations, the war in Vietnam was a much worse disaster than the war in Iraq could ever be. Almost 60,000 American dead in vain....after which we wound up pulling the plug, handing the whole thing over to the enemy and walking away.

The Yalta Conference. The United States, led by Franklin Roosevelt, gave much of Eastern Europe to the butcher Joseph Stalin in the name of "stability." That was a strategic mistake.

The Clinton/Gore Administration. The most corrupt administration in our history, featuring the impeached Bill Clinton. Al Gore had his own share of scandals...such as fundraising at a Buddhist temple. The whole thing was an 8-year mistake.

There are other mistakes we've made that have been very damaging to our country, though I don't know that they come under the definition of "strategic" mistakes. Just a sampling.

The 17th Amendment. This is the amendment that provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. The growth of the federal government and the weakening of state governments can be traced back to this event. Since the ratification of the 17th Amendment state governments have had no official representation in Washington. Nigeria has an official representative in DC. Nebraska does not.

The 16th Amendment. That's the one that brought us the income tax. Odd, isn't it, that the very income tax we suffer under in this country was called for in the Communist Manifesto? Soon after Marx and Engles wrote their manifesto the push was on in the US for an income tax.

The formation of our system of government schools. Did you know that some of the people who were deeply involved in the design of our government school system stated that the goal was to make sure we produce generations of graduates who will make good little government subjects?

Social Security. This is nothing but an income redistribution system designed to enable politicians to purchase votes with someone else's money. Social Security ushered in the era of government dependence. Tens of millions of Americans pay absolutely no attention to their retirement planning ... after all, the government is going to do it for you.

I could go on and on....but you get the idea. The war in Iraq may wind up being an expensive lesson, or perhaps an embarrassing mistake. But the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States? Not even close.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

[I]n those days, peace and reconstruction followed rather than preceded victory. In tough-minded fashion, we offered ample aid to, and imposed democracy on, war-torn nations only after the enemy was utterly defeated and humiliated. Today, to avoid such carnage, we try to help and reform countries before our enemies have been vanquished —putting the cart of aid before the horse of victory.

Our efforts today are further complicated by conflicting Internet fatwas, terrorist militias and shifting tribal alliances; in short, we are not always sure who the enemy cadre really is — or will be.

So paradoxes follow:

A stronger, far more affluent United States believes it can use less of its power against the terrorists than a much poorer America did against the formidable Japanese and Germans.

World War II, which saw more than 400,000 Americans killed, was not nearly as controversial or frustrating as one that has so far taken less than one-hundredth of that terrible toll.

And after Pearl Harbor, Americans believed they had no margin of error in an elemental war for survival. Today, we are apparently convinced that we can lose ground, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, and still not lose either the war or our civilization.

Of course, by 1945, Americans no longer feared another Pearl Harbor. Yet, we, in a far stronger and larger United States, are still not sure we won’t see another Sept. 11.

In the decades since the bombing of Pearl Harbor, countless survivors have made the long journey back to Hawaii every five years to remember comrades who were lost and to catch up with those who lived but later went their separate ways. They drink Scotch and tell war stories; they brag and weep. They often just sit together and say nothing at all.

But this year's reunion holds an urgency that hasn't been part of gatherings past: Most Pearl Harbor survivors, nearing their 90s or even older, say it will be their final trip back to this place that changed the course of their lives and their nation forever. Event organizers--many of them children of survivors who are ailing or already have died--pragmatically are calling this the "final reunion." And survivors' extended families, including children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, are coming along to the reunion in unprecedented numbers to glimpse history firsthand through their loved one's eyes before the opportunity is gone.

"This is their last swan song," said Sue Marks, an event volunteer whose father, a Pearl Harbor survivor, died a decade ago. "They know that a lot of them either won't be around in five years or won't be able to make the long trip."

Rick Moran revisits the familiar-sounding debate over Pearl Harbor intelligence and pays tribute to the dwindling number of survivors:

Every year, the ranks of veterans who lived through that horrific day when the water caught fire and the harbor was choked with the bodies of the living and the dead, grows thinner. They are old men now. Their memories are still tinged with the sadness that comes from the realization that soon, they will all be gone and, like other landmarks in American history such as Gettysburg and Antietam, it will be up to the rest of us to keep the remembrances alive and never, ever forget what happened on that impossibly beautiful Sunday morning when the world turned upside down and changed all of us forever.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

You will excuse me if I believe that talking to Syria while it is in the process of gobbling up its tiny Lebanese neighbor to be one of the most cynical, immoral, and ill-considered diplomatic ideas in a generation – which of course is right up Baker’s alley. He is a specialist at sacrificing others for the greater good; just ask the Iraqi Kurds.

And talking to the fanatical true believers in Iran (Ahmadinejad purged the foreign service last year, replacing experienced hands with ideological purists) about helping with security in Iraq is like inviting the wolf in for a drink and having Little Red Riding Hood give him a lap dance; the temptation to insinuate themselves even more into Iraqi affairs just might be too much to resist.

I don’t know if there is a way to “victory” in Iraq. Clearly the rest of the world has already made up its mind (not to mention the American media) that we have lost so that no matter what we do in Iraq, how we leave it, what we accomplish from here on out, the onus of defeat will accompany our withdrawal.

Is the ISG simply acknowledging this fact? Or are they encouraging it?

Both, probably. But in the end, it comes down to doing the best we can to bring some kind of definitive denouement to our Iraqi adventure.

To one prominent Democrat congressman--Nancy Pelosi's choice for intel chairman--that means more troops in Iraq. Yes, he said more.

Not only are Democratic leaders predicting there will be more congressional oversight of U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan now that they're going to control both the House and Senate, they're also hinting they may not automatically OK the Bush administration's next request for funds to pay for those operations, USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely reports from Capitol Hill.

"The days of a rubber stamp on a request by the administration for this effort are over," Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said today, Kiely tells us.

There is only one good reason for American troops to be in Iraq. It is the reason we sent them there in 2003: To fight and win the “war on terror” — i.e., the war against radical Islam — by deposing rogue regimes helping the terror network wage a long-term, existential jihad against the United States. You can argue that Iraq was the wrong rogue to start with; but destroying radical Islam’s will and its capacity to project power is what the war is about.

Iraq is but a single battlefield in that war. It is not “the war.” Stabilizing or even — mirabile dictu! — democratizing Iraq is not winning the war. It is the overseas equivalent of rebuilding the World Trade Center. The hard reality is that war exacts a terrible toll and its fallout must be addressed. This is why we hate war and resort to it only in the face of greater evils. But cleaning up war’s unavoidable messes is not the same as winning.

Winning the war means taking on the regimes and factions that are waging it. That is what the president promised to do after 9/11. “You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.”

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere . And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."